Sitemeter

The Tangled Mess of Utilitarianism
Peter Singer, Chair of Philosophy at Princeton University, is a famous utilitarianist who has advocated infanticide. For those who don't know Utilitarianism is the moral theory that claims that a moral act is one which maximises the total pleasure and well-being of a society and minimises the total pain and harm. Or put another way, the moral standing of an action is based entirely on the consequences of that action and not due to any duty, rights or motive.

Mirko Bagaric,a Professor of Law and Head of the School of Law at Deakin University has an article on online opinion today talking about morality, and he seems to be coming from a utilitarian stance. In referring to the recent happenings at Mt Everest where a group of climbings didn't come to the aid of another climber who later died Mirko laments

Ignoring the cries of others – it wouldn’t happen if we had regard to the common good.

Mirko later goes on to complain about our rights based culture

The problem with rights is that they limit our moral horizons to ourselves - the moral compass is suspended in an inward direction. But buried only slightly beneath such an approach are the inescapable realities that as people we live in communities; communities are merely the sum of a number of other individuals; and the actions of one person (exercising his or her rights) can have a (negative) effect on the interests of others....The most dispiriting aspect of the rights wave is that it has swept from our psyche the most important concept that is central to our well-being: the common good, measured in terms of net human flourishing.

Mirko's problem is that clearly a rights based culture has led to people who are more selfish and are more focused on their own utility, and not the utility of the whole, that Mirko calls the common good.

But here is the rub. Mirko's entire article (read the whole thing) is geared towards getting us to act in a certain way that he feels is 'moral'. In his utilitarian views, that is the common good, or happiness of the group. Setting aside the notion how why this is a 'good' end (utilitarian views try to leverage off agreement), just think about the implications of what he is trying to say.He is saying that we 'should' act in a certain way. The problem with trying to say what we 'should' do however, is that it seems to be advocating that we have a duty to act in that way. But if acts are meant to be moral based solely on their consequences, then we can't have a duty to do anything. In fact, it is impossible to call utilitarian ethics an ethical system at all, because in order to use moral language, you are implicitly assuming that we have a duty to be moral. It is a nonsensical statement.

This comes out in Mirko's essay. For instance

It’s easy to invent rights claims because rights are intellectual nonsense. No one has yet been able to provide tenable answers to questions such as: Where do rights come from? How can we distinguish real from fanciful rights? This allows people to make up rights as they “go along”.

Mirko of course then goes on to define his own 'rights'

If you want to know what interests we have, the answer is simple. It is a matter of biology and sociology, not misguided social and legal engineering. To attain any degree of flourishing we need the right to life, physical integrity, liberty, food, shelter, property and access to good health care and education.

Yep. Mirko says that people can make up 'rights' as they go along and then does exactly the same thing himself. Of course, if we are acting for the common good, then these 'rights' do not necessarily have to exist. It may be the case that the common good involves torturing a captured terrorist for information or sacrificing a single person to save 5000. It seems Mirko himself has advocated that torture may be 'moral'. So much for the right to life, libery, and physical integrity.

His final conclusion is just as nonsensical

The right not to care about others needs to be replaced by an obligation to assist others in serious trouble, when assistance would immensely help them at minimal inconvenience or little danger to ourselves.

Mirko can't even talk about morality without trying to give people obligations (i.e. duties).

You may agree with a lot of what Mirko says. I know I do. I believe we should stop to help people in need. I believe we should have a right to life and liberty. I believe society has become too self focused and inconsiderate of others. The problem is, utilitarian ethics are not a sound foundation for any of these beliefs. When you tell someone that everyone acts for their own happiness (which is a descriptive statement - an observation) and so we should act to maximise everyone's happiness (which is a prescriptive statement - an obligation), those who want to be rational ask 'why' should we do that. The utilitarian has no good answer.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Comments:

You know, Singer didn't just advocate infanticide. He even recommended that babies so killed should be used for food. Yup. He really did.

I can't give you a link for this because, from memory, I read it in one of his books that I borrowed from a library in a city south of Sydney about fifteen years ago - before ordinary folks like you and I have even heard of the internet. But it's in there in one of his books. Sick so and so.

I'm not necessarily going to defend Bigaric, but I am going to defend utilitarianism. There is a common confusion about consequentialism, of which utilitarianism is one form. My belief is that our moral "duty" is to TRY to maximize aggregate happiness. We have no duty to bring about consequences; as you rightly point out, that would be nonsensical, because we cannot know consequences until we already have acted. The utilitarian moral code simply says that your goal should be to maximize happiness.

You also address the question of why we should be utilitarians. I agree with you that there is no good reason to do so. Just as rights are made up, there is no definative rational reason to be a utilitarian. But that is the problem with any moral code - it is based on feeling or spirit, so cannot be rationally grounded.

"Yep. Mirko says that people can make up 'rights' as they go along and then does exactly the same thing himself"

Wrong. Mirko simply listed what he thinks should be the basic rights for all humans. He wasn't making up any ridiculous or outrageous "rights" such as some of the other examples he gave in his article. To, to draw a parallel between the ridiculous rights which are forcing their way into our thinking today and a list of the basics (which I notice you haven't disagreed with yourself) is absolutely ludicrous.

Anon, perhaps you should read Mirko's article again where he says"It’s easy to invent rights claims because rights are intellectual nonsense. No one has yet been able to provide tenable answers to questions such as: Where do rights come from? How can we distinguish real from fanciful rights? This allows people to make up rights as they “go along”."That seems pretty clear....he calls rights 'intellectual nonsense' then spouts his own intellectual nonsense.